CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS 1713 of 2013 on 6 October 2007

1. M.Vani, W/o M.Panduranga, aged 26 years, Rio D.No.31-803, Kothapeta, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District

2. M. Panduranga, S/o M.Aswarthanarayana, Occ: Employee and Business, R/o D.No.31-803, Kothapeta, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District Respondents/Petitioners D.No.31-803, Kothapeta, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District Respondents/Petitioners 3. M. Venkatesappa, S/o M.Minishamappa, major, Hindu, Lorry Owner No.90, Kurubapet, Chickballapur, Kolar District, Karnataka ...Respondent/1[st]Respondent Kurubapet, Chickballapur, Kolar District, Karnataka ...Respondent/1[st]Respondent Appeal Under Section 173 of MV Act against the Order and decree made in M.V.O.P.No.120 of 2006 Dated 06.10.2007 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Cum - Additional District Judge, Hindupur This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Smt A Jayanthi, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri N Aswartha Narayana, Advocate for the Respondent This Court Both order and decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is dismissed

2. That there shall be no order as to Costs in this MACMA

SDI- K.J. RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -J SEC hON OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Cum — Additional District Judge, Hindupur 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Cum — Additional District Judge, Hindupur

2. Two CD Copies sree

HIGH COURT

DATE D:23/12/2022

DECREE

MACMA.No.1713 of 2013

DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A.

1 OCT 2023} * [Current ][Section ]oFS1'ATCNS~p [* ]

company. The death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained in the accident is also not disputed, and it is also evident from Ex.A.l-copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2-copy of inquest report and Ex.A.4-copy of P.M.E. report. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. The first respondent is the crime vehicle's owner. The second respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle. The case of the claimants that the insurance policy was in force as of the date of the accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about three months, as per Ex.A.2-inquest report and Ex.A.4-PME report, and obviously, he was not the earning member. sustained in the accident is also not disputed, and it is also evident from Ex.A.l-copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2-copy of inquest report and Ex.A.4-copy of P.M.E. report. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. The first respondent is the crime vehicle's owner. The second respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle. The case of the claimants that the insurance policy was in force as of the date of the accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about three months, as per Ex.A.2-inquest report and Ex.A.4-PME report, and obviously, he was not the earning member.

b. Regarding the quantum of compensation, it is the claimant's case that the deceased was aged about 03 months at the time of the accident. As the deceased was non earning person at the date of the accident, the Tribunal has considered the national income as Rs.21,600/-per annum, out of which deducted 1/3rd of the income expected to be spent on him and arrived at Rs. 14,400/- towards annual earnings of the deceased. claimant's case that the deceased was aged about 03 months at the time of the accident. As the deceased was non earning person at the date of the accident, the Tribunal has considered the national income as Rs.21,600/-per annum, out of which deducted 1/3rd of the income expected to be spent on him and arrived at Rs. 14,400/- towards annual earnings of the deceased.

c. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs National Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors'. As seen from the judgment, in the said case, Tribunal assessed the notional income of the minor child. However, the Tribunal deducted 50% towards personal expenditure with a multiplier of 15. Without disturbing the said finding, The Hon'ble Apex Court observed, in paragraph 13, that the income of the minor child is incapable of precise fixation and observed further that they find no reason to interfere with the assessed notional income of the second deceased. Considering the grant of the future prospectus for the deceased child aged about ten years, in R.K.Malik and others vs Kiran Paull, the Hon'ble Apex Court held, in paragraph 31, as follows:

"31. A forceful submission has been made by the learned Counsels appearing for the claimants-appellants that both the Tribunal and the High Court failed to consider the claims of the appellants concerning the future prospects of the children. It has been submitted that the evidence with regard to the same has been ignored by the Courts below. On perusal of the evidence on record, we find merit in such submission that the Courts below have overlooked that aspect of the matter while granting compensation. It is well settled legal principle that in addition to awarding compensation for pecuniary losses, it must also grant compensation with regard to the prospects of the children. It is incumbent upon the Courts to consider the said aspect while awarding compensation."

c. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others3it was observed that where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to a bachelor's, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Further observed that taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, the passage of s (2017) 16 SCC 680

time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in the price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards prospects.

d. By following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court considers that 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses and 40% of the income to be added towards future prospectus. On deduction of 50% of the annual income towards personal expenses of the deceased, an amount of Rs.10,800/- can be considered, and 40% of the annual income under the future head prospects arrived at Rs.4,320/-. In total, this Court arrives at the annual income of the deceased at Rs.15,120/- (Rs.10,800/-+4,320/-). The Tribunal has applied the multiplier '15' to assess the loss of dependency, which need not be disturbed, and it would come to Rs.15,120/- x 15 = 2,26,800/-. The claimants are also entitled to compensation under the head funeral expenses. By taking into consideration that the claimants claimed compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- the Tribunal has awarded compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/-

only. It is pertinent to note that the claimants have not preferred any appeal or cross-objection questioning the award passed by the Tribunal. Thus they have no grievance against the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal.

e. After considering the entire material on record, I do not find any substance or merit in the appeal, and the appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point is answered.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

SD!- K.J. RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /!TRUE COPY/I ~ X51 /B'I'SECTION aFFICER To, c

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — Cum — Additional District Judge, Hindupur (With Records) Judge, Hindupur (With Records)

2. One CC to Smt. A Jayanthi, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri N Aswartha Naravana:[Advocate ][[OPUC] ]

4. I he Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi

5. Two CD Copies

sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:23/12/2022

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.1713 of 2013

DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A.

r ocr 2023

Q~